■     — -    ;  ' 


HP 

I. 


806l'lJWriM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


CLINICAL  STUDIES  OF  FAILURES 

WITH  THE  WITMER 

FORMBOARD 


ADAM  PERRY  KEPHART 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF   PHILOSOPHY 


PHILADELPHIA 
THE   PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC   PRESS 

1918 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


CLINICAL  STUDIES  OF  FAILURES 

WITH   THE  WITMER 

FORMBOARD 


BY 

ADAM  PERRY  KEPHART 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF    PHILOSOPHY 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE   PSYCHOLOGICAL   CLINIC   PRESS 

1918 


K 


. .    .  -. 


CLINICAL  STUDIES  OF  FAILURES  WITH  THE 
WITMER  FORMBOARD.1 

By  Adam  Perry  Kephart,  A.M., 

University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Introduction. 

In  1915-16  H.  H.  Young1  made  the  first  extensive  study  with 
the  Witmer  Formboard  and  used  the  results  from  testing  1474 
normal  boys  and  1375  normal  girls  of  all  ages  for  a  preliminary  and 
basic  standardization  of  normal  children. 

The  object  of  the  following  investigation  was  threefold;  (1)  to 
study  the  formboard  as  an  educational  device;  (2)  to  analyze  failures 
so  as  to  determine  why  a  subject  fails  and  what  his  failure  means;  and 
(3)  to  get  one  who  has  failed,  to  do  the  test  with  a  minimum  amount 
of  teaching. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  examine  a  large  number  of  children. 
The  investigation  was  not  interested  in  the  standardization  of  results 
or  in  standard  procedure,  but  in  learning  what  difficulties  the  form- 
board  presents,  what  causes  failure,  and  what  failure  means  in  rela- 
tion to  diagnosis.  Wherever  children  were  tested  in  a  school,  the 
request  was  made  that  the  worst  in  the  room  be  sent.  That  is, 
failures  were  not  selected  from  a  miscellaneous  number  who  were 
offered  for  the  test,  but  were  found  by  examining  the  youngest  and 
most  backward  pupils  in  the  lowest  grades  and  kindergarten  of  two 
public  schools  and  a  Montessori  school,  and  the  most  apparently 
backward  children  who  could  be  found  about  a  small  social  center. 

Some  children  who  failed,  as  well  as  some  very  young  children, 
were  given  instruction.  This  is  reported  under  each  case.  In  general, 
failure  was  determined  arbitrarily  by  the  fact  that  the  trial  was  left 
as  finished  when  one  or  more  blocks  were  left  unplaced  or  incorrectly 
placed,  or  that  the  child  received  some  assistance,  or  more  than  the 
standard  instructions  as  given  in  the  method  of  procedure. 


1  Reprinted  from  The  Psychological  Clinic,  Vol.  XI,  No.  S,  January,  1918. 

(229) 


10 


230  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

Method  of  Procedure. 

In  the  initial  presentation  of  the  formboard  to  all  the  children 
but  case  1,  the  standard  method  of  procedure  of  Young1  was  followed 
exactly  except  in  two  points:  (1)  the  subjects  were  selected;  (2)  they 
were  not  required  to  stand.  The  different  places  in  which  they 
were  found  made  it  necessary  to  use  the  tables  and  chairs  that  could 
be  obtained.  In  every  case,  however,  the  child  was  seated  so  that 
he  could  reach  the  blocks  without  strain  or  distraction.  The  light 
was  always  the  best  obtainable.  In  the  case  of  successes,  Young's 
standard  method  was  not  departed  from  except  in  the  two  points 
mentioned.  All  three  trials  were  given  and  the  standard  data 
collected,  with  such  additions  as  will  be  described  under  the  head 
of  "data  collected."  In  the  case  of  failure,  the  method  was  varied 
to  suit  the  age  or  to  meet  the  difficulty  encountered.  The  amount 
and  kind  of  assistance  and  instruction  given  were  standardized  and 
graduated.  In  some  cases  very  little  was  given.  In  a  few  cases 
so  much  help  was  given  that  it  amounted  to  showing  the  subject 
exactly  what  to  do.  The  attempt  to  do  exactly  the  same  thing  for 
every  child  was  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  results  comparable. 
However,  in  very  few  cases  were  two  or  more  children  given  exactly 
the  same  amount  of  instruction.  The  lists  given  below  consist  of 
the  instruction  given,  from  the  minimum  amount,  up  to  the  actual 
placing  of  the  blocks  for  the  child. 

The  board  was  laid  before  the  child  with  all  the  blocks  correctly 
placed,  and  the  child  was  allowed  to  see  the  examiner  take  them 
out  and  put  them  in  the  traj'.  The  following  steps  were  taken  as 
needed,  but  only  as  much  as  needed.  In  case  what  was  said  or  done 
did  not  have  any  effect  the  next  step  was  taken. 

1.  "Go  ahead,  or  "All  right,"  or  "Ready." 

2.  The  original  instructions  were  repeated  or  the  examiner 
simply  said,  "See  how  quickly  (or  fast)  you  can  put  them  back." 

3.  If  the  child  picked  up  a  block  and  began, — tried  to  place  it, 
he  was  allowed  to  work  until  he  gave  up. 

4.  If  the  child  did  not  begin  after  the  repetition  of  the  instruc- 
tions and  sufficient  urging  and  encouragement,  the  following  pro- 
cedure was  followed,  using  only  as  much  of  it  as  was  absolutely 
necessary,  under  the  condition  that  the  minimum  amount  of 
instruction  should  be  given. 

(a)  Examiner  picked  up  block  6  and  handed  it  to  the  child. 

(b)  Examiner  said,  "Place  it,"  or  "Put  it  back." 

(c)  If  the  subject  tried  to  place  the  block  and  persisted  without 
success  indefinitely  (beyond  ten  minutes)  and  the  quality  of  the 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    231 

performance  warranted  it,  the  examiner  interfered  and  the  next  step 
was  taken. 

(d)  If  the  child  threw  the  blocks  away  or  put  one  in  his  mouth, 
it  was  handed  to  him  until  it  was  clearly  seen  that  he  would  go  no 
further;  or  if  he  simply  quit  and  refused,  the  examiner  took  the 
block,  pointed  to  the  recess  and  handed  the  block  back  to  the  subject. 
This  was  usually  enough.  In  the  case  of  a  few  babies  and  one  or 
two  others  it  was  necessary  to  do  this. 

(e)  If  the  blocks  were  placed  in  a  random  fashion  over  the  face 
of  the  board,  the  trial  was  called  a  failure  and  the  teaching  began  as 
described  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  If  showing  how  to  place 
block  6  was  not  sufficient,  after  the  examiner  was  sure  the  subject 
could  place  that  one,  he  added  1  and  taught  the  two  until  there  was 
no  doubt  about  the  ability  to  place  them.  Then  2  was  added,  then 
4,  then  3  and  8  were  taught  in  a  similar  way;  then  7  and  9,  10  and 
11;  thus  taking  the  two  or  three  that  were  confused  and  teaching 
them  together  until  there  was  certainty  in  placing. 

(/)  If  after  correctly  placing  one  or  more  blocks  the  child  refused 
to  go  on,  he  was  urged  by  saying,  "Go  on,  finish  it,"  or  "Put  the 
rest  back." 

(g)  If  he  had  trouble  with  any  one  block,  he  was  allowed  to 
work  as  long  as  he  would,  until  it  could  be  called  an  actual  failure. 

(h)  If  he  failed  and  gave  up  on  any  block,  the  trial  was  counted 
a  failure.  The  examiner  then  corrected  all  the  errors  and  without 
comment  started  the  next  trial. 

(i)  If  on  the  third  trial  the  child  could  not  place  one  or  more 
blocks  correctly,  the  examiner  said  either,  "Look  at  it  carefully,"  or 
"Turn  it  around."  If  this  had  no  affect  the  examiner  took  the 
particular  block  and  turned  it  and  then  handed  it  back.  If  it  was 
not  placed  the  examiner  took  the  block  and  placed  it,  then  handed 
it  back  and  said,  "Now  you  put  it  in." 

(j)  If  the  child,  on  the  third  trial,  persisted  in  trying  to  place 
the  block  in  one  place  without  looking  around  the  examiner  said, 
"Look  all  around." 

There  are  other  details  of  teaching  which  were  used  with  indi- 
vidual cases,  and  described  in  the  case  reports.  The  general  method, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  made  standard,  was  as  described. 

Data  Collected. 

As  far  as  possible  the  following  record  was  made:   Name,  sex, 

chronological  age,  school  age,  teacher's  estimate,  whether  failure  or 

not,  diagnosis,  rating  on  five  point  scale,  formboard  time,  nationality, 

social   class,    physical   characteristics,    and    qualitative   statement. 


232  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

In  case  of  failure,  further  clinical  examination  was  made  using 
one  or  more  of  the  following  tests:  peg-board,  color  discrimination, 
design  blocks,  Witmer  cylinders,  hearing,  vision,  memory  span, 
Healy  completion  test,  Binet  (Terman)  scale,  reading,  writing, 
number  work.  The  data  collected  from  these  tests  was  used  in 
making  the  diagnosis  and  summation  rating. 

Reports  of  Cases. 

As  far  as  possible  all  of  the  cases  are  treated  alike,  especially  in 
the  order  of  presentation  of  the  material.  Case  1  is  an  exception  to 
this,  as  the  study  was  made  as  a  separate  investigation,  as  noted  in 
the  report.  In  the  case  of  school  children  the  school  rating  or 
teacher's  estimate  was  given.  By  the  type  of  failure  is  meant  the  type 
of  performance.  When  it  is  recorded  that  the  failure  type  is  one  of 
"imageability"  it  means  that,  judging  from  the  performance,  the 
failure  is  due  more  to  lack  of  imageability  than  to  any  other  factor 
although  all  the  other  disabilities  may  be  contributing  to  the  failure. 
There  is  no  thought  or  intention  of  intimating  that  failure  is  due  to 
any  one  lack  or  disability  or  that  an  ability  can  be  isolated  in  function. 
In  the  rating,  in  the  technical  diagnosis,  every  child  is  compared  with 
others  of  his  own  age.  The  selected  cases  are  reported  to  illustrate 
the  various  types  of  performance  and  to  bring  out  the  abilities  which 
make  success  possible  and  the  disabilities  which  make  failure  possible. 

The  two  reports  selected  for  presentation  are  of  interest  because 
of  the  possible  comparisons  and  contrasts.  The  first  is  a  normal  one 
year  old  baby  and  the  second  a  twelve  year  old  idio-imbecile.  Both 
fail  for  the  same  reason,  and  the  second  is  mentally  of  the  same  age 
as  the  first  child  when  she  first  succeeded  with  the  formboard.  It  is 
unfortunate  that  neither  of  these  can  be  located  on  Young's  standard- 
ization. The  other  failures,  unless  they  were  below  all  of  Young's, 
were  located  thus:  shortest  of  Young's  successes,  in  group  IV  of 
4M  years;  shortest  of  Young's  failures,  from  group  I  of  4%  years  to 
group  V  of  8%  years. 

Case  1. 
Girl.  Diagnosis:  Normal.  Age:  13  mo.  School  age:  0. 
Rating:  3.5.  Formboard  Time:  See  report.  Nationality:  Ameri- 
can. Social  Class:  Professional.  Physical  Characteristics :  Normal. 
Young's  Standardization :  Shortest  of  successes :  Below  all.  Shortest 
of  failures:  Below  all.  Types  of  Failure:  Lack  of  understanding  and 
persistent  concentration  of  attention.  Why  Selected:  To  determine 
how  long  it  would  take  the  baby  to  teach  herself  to  do  the  formboard 
test. 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORM  BOARD.    233 

This  study  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  observing  the  part 
played  by  the  several  abilities  as  they  develop  in  the  very  young 
child.  Margaret  had  had  no  experience  with  the  formboard  and 
little  experience  with  other  blocks.  As  will  be  seen  in  the  description 
of  the  method  as  applied  to  this  case,  the  minimum  amount  of 
instruction  was  given.  For  six  months  the  child  worked  with  the 
test  until  she  was  successful.  With  few  exceptions  the  board  was 
placed  before  her  on  a  small  table  and  she  sat  or  stood  before  it. 
The  task  could  not  be  given  to  her  daily  on  account  of  the  occasional 
absence  of  the  examiner.  She  was  allowed  to  work  or  play  with  the 
board  only  under  supervision  during  the  first  four  months  of  the 
experiment.  During  the  last  two  weeks  it  was  placed  on  a  low 
cabinet  where  she  could  have  it  all  the  time.  No  one  besides  the 
investigator  was  allowed  to  present  the  test  to  her,  and  she  was  not 
allowed  to  see  anyone  else  try  it.  During  the  first  four  months,  after 
each  presentation,  she  was  permitted  to  play  with  the  board  as  long 
as  she  would.  Thirty  tests  were  made  during  the  first  four  months, 
from  May  30th  to  September  28th.  After  that  she  did  not  see  the 
board  for  a  full  month.  From  November  1st  to  12th,  when  complete 
success  came,  she  had  the  board  to  play  with  as  she  pleased,  but 
without  assistance  and  never  with  other  children. 

Test  1.    May  30,  1915.     Age  12  mo.  18  da. 

(a)  Before  showing  the  formboard  all  the  blocks  were  placed 
in  the  tray.  It  was  then  put  before  her  and  the  examiner  said,  "Put 
the  blocks  back."    This  was  repeated  twice.    She  did  nothing. 

(6)  The  circle  was  picked  from  the  tray  and  the  examiner  said, 
"Put  this  one  in."  She  took  it,  looked  it  over,  and  handled  it  as 
she  would  any  other  article,  then  put  it  in  her  mouth.  The  examiner 
insisted,  "Put  it  in."     She  did  not  try. 

(c)  The  examiner  placed  the  circle  in  its  recess,  handed  it  to 
her  and  said,  "Margaret  do  it."  She  took  the  block  and  put  it  in 
her  mouth. 

(d)  Without  permitting  her  to  see  what  he  was  doing,  the 
examiner  placed  all  the  blocks  in  their  recesses  with  the  exception  of 
the  circle.  He  then  put  the  board  before  her,  handed  the  circle  to 
her  and  said,  "Margaret,  put  it  in."  She  took  the  block  but  did 
nothing  with  it.  The  examiner  then  took  it,  put  it  in  its  recess  and 
pointed  to  it.  He  then  took  it  out,  handed  it  to  her  and  said, 
"Margaret  do  it."    She  quickly  put  it  in. 

(e)  With  all  the  blocks  in  their  recesses  the  examiner  took  the 
circle,  placed  it  on  the  board  just  beside  the  recess  and  pushed  it  in. 


234  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

He  then  placed  it  again  in  the  same  position  and  said,  "Margaret, 
do  it."    She  quickly  did  it. 

(/)  The  examiner  placed  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray.  Margaret 
picked  up  the  circle  and  tried  it  in  the  diamond  recess.  She  then  lost 
interest  and  tried  to  take  the  examiner's  pencil  and  paper.  She  threw 
the  blocks  around  the  room. 

The  circle  was  chosen  because  it  is  the  simplest  of  the  forms. 
It  requires  less  information,  less  coordination,  than  any  of  the  rest, 
and  is  attractive.  In  (a)  above  there  were  several  possibilities.  She 
may  not  have  understood  what  was  asked.  She  most  likely  did  not 
associate  any  of  the  blocks  with  any  of  the  recesses.  In  (6)  she  did 
what  she  needed  to  do,  took  the  block  and  examined  it  and  the 
mouth  was  the  proper  place  to  put  it.  She  could  not  associate  it 
with  the  recess  as  there  is  little  resemblance  at  first  presentation. 
In  (c)  one  would  expect  her  to  follow  the  lead  and  at  least  place  the 
block  on  the  board  somewhere.  But  she  still  did  not  have  enough 
information  or  did  not  understand  what  was  wanted.  There  were 
too  many  recesses.  In  (d)  the  number  of  choices  was  cut  to  one  but 
she  did  not  understand  the  command.  When  the  examiner  placed 
the  block  for  her  the  command  was  explained  and  interpreted  and 
she  quickly  responded.  Trial  (e)  was  not  necessary  but  it  served  as 
a  review  of  the  fact  that  the  block  and  the  recess  belonged  together. 
Trial  (/)  showed  that  she  had  reached  the  limit  of  persistence  of 
attention. 

The  coordination  of  hand  and  eye  movements  is  most  important 
in  this  early  feat  of  coordination.  An  occasional  glance  might  be 
sufficient  to  locate  and  associate  the  block  and  its  recess,  but  the 
hand  movement  would  have  to  be  fairly  precise  to  bring  success. 
The  performance  shows  that  the  command  and  the  demonstration 
were  necessary  because  of  the  small  range  of  observation  and  dis- 
tribution of  attention.  Attention  is  forced  by  the  procedure  but  the 
period  is  very  short.  The  first  test  did  not  last  longer  than  three 
minutes. 

Test  2.     May  SI,  1915.     Age  12  mo.  19  da. 

(a)  With  all  the  blocks  in  the  trough,  the  board  was  placed 
before  Margaret  with  the  command,  "Put  the  blocks  all  back." 
She  pulled  at  the  board  and  picked  up  blocks  at  random,  but  always 
picked  up  the  circle  first. 

(6)  The  examiner  picked  the  circle  from  the  tray,  handed  it  to 
her  and  said,  "Put  this  one  in."  She  took  it  and  looked  at  it  as  she 
turned  it  over  and  over. 

(c)  The  examiner  then  took  the  circle  and  said,  "See  Daddy  do 


FAILURES  WITH   THE  WITMER   FORMBOARD.    235 

it,"  and  placed  it.     He  then  handed  it  to  her  and  said,  "Margaret 
do  it."     She  quickly  placed  it. 

(d)  With  all  the  recesses  filled  except  6,  the  board  was  put 
before  her.  The  circle  was  given  her  with  the  command,  "Margaret 
put  it  in."     She  did  it. 

(e)  With  all  the  other  blocks  in  their  recesses,  the  circle  was 
placed  beside  its  recess  and  the  command  given,  "Push  it  in."  She 
did  it. 

Very  definite  progress  is  seen  in  this  second  presentation.  The 
amount  of  teaching  is  cut  down.  A  decided  improvement  in  analytic 
concentration  of  attention  in  a  very  elementary  form  is  shown  by  the 
very  certain  success  when  the  number  of  choices  is  increased. 

Test  3.     June  1,  1915.    Age  12  mo.  20  da. 

(a,  c,  d)   Procedure  and  result  the  same  as  on  the  first  two  days. 

(b)  The  examiner  took  the  block  from  the  tray  (all  recesses  being 
empty)  and  handed  it  to  her  saying,  "Margaret  put  it  in."  She 
placed  it  with  very  little  hesitation  and  without  trial  and  error.  She 
then  took  the  cross  and  tried  to  put  it  in  the  circular  recess. 

Here  is  shown  another  definite  stage  of  improvement.  She 
selected  the  proper  recess  from  many  empty  ones.  The  simplicity  of 
the  task  and  the  first  attempt  to  place  another  block  are  to  be 
noted. 

Test  4.    June  2,  1915.    Age  12  mo.  21  da. 
There  was  no  variation  from  the  third  day  except  that  she  tried 
to  put  the  circle  in  a  triangular  recess. 

Test  5.     June  3,  1915.    Age  19  mo.  22  da. 
Could  not  get  any  response. 

Test  6.     June  4,  1915.    Age  12  mo.  23  da. 

(a,  b,  c)  Procedure  and  success  as  before.  She  tried  to  put  the 
circle  in  the  semicircular  recess  and  in  several  other  places,  and  then 
lost  interest. 

(e)  She  picked  up  the  circle  and  rolled  it  across  the  floor.  She 
then  tried  to  put  it  in  the  recesses  for  cross,  triangle,  and  star;  took 
the  diamond  and  star,  put  them  on  the  floor,  and  then  walked  away 
with  the  circle. 

In  (a)  the  attempt  to  put  the  circle  in  other  recesses  and  in 
(b)  her  attention  to  other  blocks  were  significant  in  that  she  was 
showing  interest  in  other  blocks  and  that  her  distribution  of  attention 


236  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

was  increasing.     The  repeated  success  of  (b)  shows  that  the  success 
was  not  accidental. 

Test  7.     June  9,  1915.     Age  12  mo.  28  da. 

(a)  The  examiner  put  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  and  told  her  to 
put  them  back.  She  picked  the  circle  and  placed  it  without  trial 
and  error. 

(b,  d)  Procedure  and  success  as  before.  She  then  took  out  a 
few  blocks,  emptied  the  board,  and  carried  the  semicircle  away. 

This  was  the  first  time  she  took  a  block  from  the  tray  and  placed 
it;  it  was  also  the  first  time  she  tried  to  take  the  blocks  out  of  the 
recesses,  showing  that  she  had  some  idea  of  the  relations. 

Test  8.     June  14,  1915.     Age  18 mo.  8  da. 

(a)  Procedure  and  success  as  on  the  9th.  She  tried  the  ellipse 
in  the  square  and  circular  recesses  and  then  in  its  own  recess. 

The  other  trials  were  omitted.  On  the  9th  she  seemed  to  see 
some  of  the  relations  and  now  she  applied  this  knowledge  in  correctly 
placing  the  ellipse  after  two  trial  errors.  There  was  little  analysis  yet, 
but  still  it  was  not  entirely  trial  and  error,  unless  the  success  on  the 
third  trial  was  accidental.  The  procedure  was  largely  confined  to 
offering  her  the  board  with  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray. 

Test  9.     June  15,  1915.     Age  18  mo.  4  da. 

(a)  Procedure  and  success  as  before. 

(c)  The  examiner  handed  each  of  the  blocks  to  her  in  succession. 
She  threw  them  down  at  once  with  the  exception  of  the  circle.  She 
held  it  and  looked  at  it  for  about  five  seconds  and  then  placed  it 
correctly. 

Test  10.     June  16,  1915.     Age  13  mo.  5  da. 
(a)  Procedure  and  success  as  before,  three  times  in  succession. 
She  tried  to  put  the  circle  in  the  semi-circular  recess  but  then  went  to 
playing  and  throwing  the  blocks  about. 

Test  11.    June  18,  1915.    Age  18  mo.  7  da. 

(a)  She  took  the  circle  from  the  tray  and  placed  it  correctly. 

(b)  The  examiner  put  the  circle  back  in  the  tray  with  the  other 
blocks,  then  took  it  out,  handed  it  to  her  and  said,  "Put  it  back." 
She  did  it. 

(c)  The  examiner  placed  all  the  blocks  in  the  recesses  without 


FAILURES   WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    237 

permitting  her  to  see  the  operation,  handed  her  the  circle  and  said, 
"Put  it  back."    She  did  it. 

(d)  The  examiner  repeated  trial  (a).  She  played  a  while  and 
lost  interest. 

Test  12.    June  20,  1915.    Age  IS  mo.  9  da. 
No  apparent  progress  except  that  she  took  all  the  blocks  out  and 
placed  them  beside  her  on  the  chair. 

Test  13.     June  21,  1915.     Age  IS  mo.  10  da. 
No  progress.     The  time  was  spent  playing  with  the  blocks. 

Test  14.  July  1,  1915.  Age  IS  mo.  20  da. 
(a)  With  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  she  picked  out  and  placed 
the  circle,  then  passed  out  the  blocks  to  the  examiner,  one  by  one, 
threw  them  around  the  room  and  tried  to  put  the  circle  in  the  square 
and  elliptical  recesses.  When  other  blocks  were  handed  to  her  she 
threw  them  away. 

Test  15.    July  4,  1915.    Age  13  mo.  24  da. 
No  new  developments.    Trial  (a)  only  was  given. 

Test  16.    July  10, 1915.    Age  13  mo.  29  da. 

(a)  With  the  board  empty  she  took  first  the  circle  and  then  the 
star  and  placed  them  correctly  without  trial  error.  She  then  wanted 
to  throw  the  blocks.  She  sat  on  the  board,  turned  it  over  and  tried 
to  place  the  blocks  on  the  under  side. 

Here  we  see  another  definite  acquisition.  Of  her  own  accord 
she  picked  the  star,  an  attractive  form,  and  placed  it  correctly. 
That  she  tried  to  place  the  blocks  on  the  under  side  of  the  board 
indicates  improvement  in  understanding. 

Test  17.    July  15,  1915.    Age  14  mo.  S  da. 
Performance  of  the  tenth  repeated  exactly. 

Test  18.  July  28,  1915.  Age  14  mo.  16  da. 
(a)  With  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  she  took  the  circle  and  placed 
it.  She  then  tried  it  in  other  recesses,  took  it  out  and  put  it  back 
four  times  in  succession.  She  tried  the  star  in  its  recess  but  could  not 
make  it  go  down.  She  then  took  the  other  blocks  from  the  tray  and 
passed  them  to  the  examiner  one  by  one  and  sat  on  the  board. 


238  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

Test  19.    July  80,  1915.    Age  14  mo.  18  da. 
(a)  She  took  the  circle  from  the  tray,  tried  it  in  the  semicircular 
and  square  recesses,  then  on  the  cross  and  then  in  its  own  recess. 

Test  20.    August  2,  1915.    Age  14  mo.  21  da. 

(a)  She  took  the  hexagon  (10)  and  tried  it  in  the  diamond  (11) 
recess,  the  semicircle  (5)  in  the  ellipse  (4).  She  then  put  the  ellipse 
on  the  hexagon  and  tried  to  put  both  in  the  diamond  recess. 

(6)  Without  permitting  her  to  observe,  the  examiner  put  all  the 
blocks  in  their  recesses,  handed  the  star  to  her  and  said,  "Put  it  back." 
She  placed  it  without  error  after  a  little  fumbling. 

Test  21.    August  10,  1915.    Age  14  mo.  29  da. 
This  test  was  a  complete  failure.     She  showed  no  inclination 
to  try. 

Test  22.    August  11,  1915.    Age  14  mo.  80  da. 
The  examiner  presented  the  board  with  all  the  blocks  in  their 
recesses.     She  took  out  all  and  then  put  the  equilateral  triangle  (9) 
back  in  its  recess.     She  then  tried  to  put  the  cross  in  the  circular 
recess  and  the  circle  in  the  cross  recess  but  lost  interest  and  quit. 

Test  23.    August  18,  1915.    Age  15  mo.  1  da. 
When  all  of  the  blocks  were  in  the  tray  the  examiner  handed 
the  circle  to  her  and  she  placed  it  correctly.     He  then  gave  her  the 
star  and  she  put  it  on  its  recess  but  not  down  in  it. 

Test  24.    August  20,  1915.    Age  15  mo.  8  da. 
With  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  she  took  the  circle,  placed  it, 
took  it  out  again,  and  tried  to  put  the  star  in  the  circular  recess.    She 
then  took  the  cross  and  tried  it  in  the  circular  recess,  and  then  put 
the  circle  back  in  its  recess. 

Test  25.    August  24,  1915.    Age  15  mo.  12  da. 
No  progress  or  change  to  report. 

Test  26.  August  25,  1915.    Age  15  mo.  18  da. 
(a)  She  took  the  circle  and  placed  it,  tried  it  in  the  recesses  for 
semicircle,  ellipse,  cross,  and  star,  then  put  it  back  in  its  own  recess. 
She  took  the  semicircle  and  star  and  put  them  on  but  not  down  in 
their  own  recesses. 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    239 

(6)  With  all  the  blocks  but  the  star  and  semicircle  placed,  the 
examiner  gave  her  first  the  star  and  then  the  semicircle  saying,  "Put 
this  one  back."     She  refused  and  ran  away. 

In  these  recent  tests  she  seemed  to  think  that  if  the  circle  would 
fit  one  recess  it  should  fit  all,  so  she  tried  it  around  the  board.  This 
shows  poor  imageability,  but  increased  association  and  understand- 
ing. On  the  second  of  August  there  was  indication  that  she  was 
beginning  to  think  of  the  other  blocks  in  the  same  way  that  she  did 
of  the  circle.  There  was  indication  of  an  attempt  to  use  the  trial  and 
error  method  in  working  with  other  blocks  than  the  circle.  On  the 
second  she  placed  the  star,  and  on  the  eleventh  the  triangle.  She 
now  reversed  the  association  and  tried  the  other  blocks  in  the  circular 
recess.  On  the  thirteenth  and  twenty-fifth,  she  definitely  connected 
the  star  and  semicircle  with  their  recesses. 

Test  27.     September  7,  1915.    Age  15  mo.  26  da. 

With  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  she  took  the  cross,  semicircle,  and 
circle  and  tried  to  place  them  but  failed.  This  is  the  first  time  it  was 
certain  that  she  understood  when  told  to  take  the  blocks  out  and  put 
them  back,  for  she  repeated  the  effort  when  told  to  do  so.  In  taking 
them  out  she  took  them  one  by  one  from  the  board  to  her  chair,  and 
when  only  three  were  left  she  turned  the  board  over.  When  she  was 
told  to  put  the  blocks  back  she  tried  a  few  but  lost  interest  and  quit. 

Here  is  shown  definite  interest,  increase  in  understanding, 
increase  in  distribution  of  attention,  and  increased  persistence  of 
attention. 

Test  28.  September  17,  1915.  Age  16  mo.  5  da. 
The  examiner  placed  the  board  before  her  with  all  the  recesses 
filled  and  said,  "Take  the  blocks  out  and  put  them  here"  (indicating 
the  tray).  She  put  them  all  there  except  the  cross  and  the  rectangle. 
The  examiner  then  said,  "Put  them  back."  She  began  picking  up 
the  blocks,  placed  the  circle  and  cross,  and  quit. 

Test  29.  September  26,  1915.  Age  16  mo.  U  da. 
The  examiner  placed  the  board  before  her  as  on  the  17th.  She 
took  all  the  blocks  out  and  placed  them  in  the  tray.  He  then  told 
her  to  put  them  back.  She  put  all  on  the  board  but  only  the  circle 
in  its  recess.  She  worked  longer  than  at  any  previous  test  and  seemed 
to  like  to  take  the  blocks  out  and  put  them  back  on  the  board. 


240  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

Test  SO.    September  28,  1915.    Age  16  mo.  16  da. 

With  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray  the  examiner  gave  her  the  circle 
and  she  placed  it.  He  then  took  away  the  circle  and  gave  her  the 
cross.  She  tried  to  force  it  into  the  circular  recess.  The  examiner 
then  put  the  circle  in  its  recess  and  gave  her  the  cross.  She  took  the 
circle  out  and  again  tried  to  force  the  cross  into  the  circular  recess. 
She  then  took  the  semicircle,  star,  and  cross  and  tried  all  in  the 
circular  recess. 

The  results  so  far  are  about  what  would  be  obtained  from  a 
low  grade  imbecile  on  the  first  trial  with  the  formboard.  There 
is  about  the  same  amount  of  interest,  persistence,  and  imageability. 
This  is  the  first  time  Margaret  took  all  the  blocks  out  and  placed  them 
all  back  on  the  board.  This  certainly  shows  increase  in  understanding 
and  in  persistent  concentration  of  attention. 

Test  SI.    November  12,  1915.    Age  18  mo. 

During  the  day  it  was  observed  that  Margaret  had  put  all  the 
blocks  back  in  the  correct  recesses.  It  was  known  that  they  had 
been  scattered  about  the  room  before  and  that  no  one  else  had  replaced 
them.  The  examiner  immediately  placed  all  the  blocks  in  the  tray, 
put  the  board  before  Margaret  and  said,  "Margaret,  put  them  all 
back."  She  worked  for  nine  minutes  with  many  trial  errors,  and 
placed  all  without  final  error.  During  the  nine  minutes  many  things 
distracted  her.  The  coordination  was  poor,  the  rate  of  energy 
discharge  was  very  slow.  Most  of  the  nine  minutes  were  spent  in 
looking  about,  handling  the  blocks,  shaking  them,  and  jabbering  to 
the  examiner,  but  when  she  made  up  her  mind  to  place  a  block  she 
did  it  relatively  quickly.  This  same  condition  persisted  throughout 
the  trials  which  follow.  A  large  part  of  the  time  was  spent  in  playing. 
From  this  time  on  many  unrecorded  tests  were  made. 

On  December  25th  all  were  placed  in  three  minutes,  on  April 
24th,  after  she  had  not  seen  the  board  for  five  weeks,  they  were  all 
placed  with  one  trial  error  in  110  sec.  On  August  10th  the  time  was 
70  sec.,  on  November  10th  three  times  in  succession  it  was  45  sec., 
and  on  January  15, 1917,  when  she  was  aged  32  months,  it  was  35  sec. 
Since  then  the  time  has  not  been  improved  and  there  is  no  attempt 
to  speed  up.  From  the  first  success,  most  of  the  time  was  spent  in 
playing  between  placing  the  blocks. 

Case  15. 
Girl.      Diagnosis:    Idio-imbecile.      Formboard  Time:    F.   196 — 
F.  436.   Age:  12yrs.  4  mo.    School  Age:  Kindergarten.    Rating:  1.2. 


FAILURES  WITH  THE   WITMER  FORMBOARD.     241 

Nationality:  Italian.  Social  Class:  Poor  shopkeeper.  Physical 
Characteristics:  Cephalic  index,  79.03;  head  girth,  52.9.  Talks 
little  more  than  a  child  of  two.  Hard  palate  high;  protruding  can- 
ines and  wide  frog  mouth;  leering,  wolfish  appearance,  slant  eyas, 
and  nystagmus  in  both;  extreme  knock  knees,  spraddle  legs  and 
feet,  small  ears,  and  awkward,  babyish  gait.  Very  thin.  Young's 
Standard:  Shortest  of  successes:  below  all.  Shortest  of  failures: 
below  all.  Type  of  Failure:  Lack  of  understanding  and  persistent 
concentration  of  attention. 

Tests. 
Formboard. 

I.  Blocks  were  fingered  in  monkey  fashion.  After  the  directions 
were  repeated  she  placed  3,  6  and  8  and  put  the  rest  on  top  of  the 
board. 

II.  She  again  put  the  blocks  on  top  at  random.  When  1  was 
given  to  her  she  placed  it  over  recess  2,  but  corrected  it  when  the 
examiner  said,  "No."  Nos.  2  and  4  were  treated  similarly.  All  of 
the  blocks  were  then  placed  with  many  trial  errors,  7  would  not 
have  been  placed  had  not  an  observer  said,  "She  has  it  backward." 
Time  approximately  eight  minutes,  five  spent  in  placing  7. 

III.  Repetition  of  trial  II.     Time  436  sec. 

Further  examination  had  to  be  made  a  week  later  when  the 
formboard  was  given  again. 

Formboard  (second  test). 

I.  A  better  performance,  but  she  still  persisted  in  removing 
correctly  placed  blocks.  She  compared  the  blocks  by  fitting  them 
together.  There  was  improvement  in  distribution  of  attention. 
No  assistance  except  urging  was  given.     Time  523  sec. 

II.  Improvement  in  selecting  and  rejecting  and  in  memory  of 
the  simpler  forms  but  no  persistence.    Time  116  sec. 

III.  Only  three  trial  errors,  improved  interest  evidenced  by 
singing  and  more  rapid  work.     Time  99  sec. 

Peg-board. 

Random  pegging  with  very  poor  coordination.  Qualitatively 
a  two  year  old  performance.    Time  148  sec. 

Design  Blocks. 

Failed  on  all  but  a  row  of  red  blocks.  Could  match  colors  if 
attention  was  held. 


242  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

Witmer  Cylinders. 

I.  Random  placing  with  poor  coordination.  The  examiner 
placed  all  but  three,  one  of  which  she  placed  correctly.  The  other 
two  were  interchanged.  She  was  then  told  which  were  right  and  she 
corrected  the  two.  In  the  same  way  the  four  largest  were  placed 
with  two  trial  errors,  four  scattered  with  no  errors,  then  five  with 
four  errors,  then  five  long  cylinders  with  four  trial  errors,  then  five 
long  ones  with  small  diameters  with  two  trial  errors.  All  were  now 
taken  out  and  she  began  again.  Her  attention  wandered.  She  said 
"bang"  as  she  placed  each  one.  When  told  to  correct  two  that  were 
wrong  she  took  them  out.  The  examiner  then  removed  five  that 
were  wrong.     After  very  much  assistance  all  were  placed  in  499  sec. 

II.  Trial  I  was  repeated.  She  tried  to  force  large  into  small, 
and  left  small  cylinders  in  large  recesses.  Occasionally  she  leaned 
back  and  laughed  and  hit  the  cylinder  a  hard  blow.    Time  452  sec. 

Binet  (Terman  revision) . 

Mental  age  score,  three  years.     Intelligence  quotient,  24.3. 

This  girl  is  obviously  an  idio-imbecile.  She  plays  about  with 
other  children,  is  imposed  upon  and  cries  at  nothing,  like  a  two  year 
old  child.  Her  speech  is  very  incoherent.  She  has  been  in  the 
kindergarten  all  her  school  life  and  she  is  improving  a  little.  Her 
brother  of  nine  years,  in  the  fourth  grade,  has  the  appearance  of  a 
mongolian  and  some  of  the  marks  of  the  high  grade  imbecile.  The 
girl  is  always  dirty,  scantily  dressed,  and  exhibits  herself  anywhere. 
On  the  five  point  scale  the  following  ratings  are  given:  energy  2, 
rate  of  energy  discharge  2,  resistence  to  fatigue  2,  health  2,  control  1.5, 
coordination  1.5,  initiative  2,  complexity  of  responsiveness  1.3, 
vivacity  4,  analytic  concentration  1.3,  persistence  1.5,  distribution  of 
attention  1.3,  imageability  1.2,  understanding  1.3,  memory  1.4,  and 
intelligence  1.2.  This  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  fact  that  control, 
coordination,  and  general  vitality  may  be  very  low,  but  may  not 
produce  failure  without  lack  in  some  other  respect. 

General  Analysis. 
It  will  be  seen  from  table  III  that  there  is  little,  if  any,  relation 
between  age,  formboard  time,  diagnostic  rating,  and  diagnosis  (in 
cases  of  this  investigation)  except  the  direct  relation  between  sum- 
mation rating  and  diagnosis.  Table  II  shows  the  general  tendency 
for  time  to  decrease  with  age  for  188  subjects.  A  summation  of  all 
available  cases  is  not  possible  on  account  of  the  incomplete  record  of 
formboard  time  for  the  failures  who  came  to  the  Clinic.    Table  III  is 


FAILURES  WITH   THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    243 

given  to  afford  a  short  summary  of  these  studies  rather  than  to 
attempt  to  prove  anything. 

H.  H.  Young  had  a  total  of  182  failures  out  of  3031  cases  exam 
ined,  or  6  per  cent;  75  out  of  1549  boys  or  4.2  per  cent,  and  107  out 
of  1422  girls  or  7.2  per  cent.  Of  the  122  failures,  72  per  cent  occurred 
on  the  first  trial  only,  11  per  cent  on  the  first  and  second  trials,  3  pei 
cent  on  the  third  trial,  and  two  children  failed  on  all  three  trials.  In 
this  investigation  all  but  one  failed  on  the  first  trial.  In  some  cases 
there  was  only  one  trial,  as  the  strain  of  teaching  wore  the  child  out. 
Ten  failed  on  the  first  trial  only,  none  on  the  second  only,  none  on 
the  third  only,  six  on  both  first  and  second,  one  on  the  first  and  third, 
and  seven  on  all  three  trials. 

Although  this  investigation  was  not  undertaken  to  find  the 
failure  level  for  the  formboard,  there  are  many  things  in  the  results 
which  make  it  possible  to  locate  that  level  approximately.  In 
Young's  investigation,  in  which  he  tested  all  children  who  were  sent 
to  him,  taking  every  child  in  a  school  room,  he  found  that  out  of 
fifty  children  under  five  years  of  age,  twenty-four  succeeded  on  the 
first  trial  and  twenty-six  failed.  It  must  be  remembered  that  he 
set  a  time  limit  of  three  minutes  and  called  all  failures  who  did  not 
succeed  in  that  time.  In  the  present  investigation,  where  the  subjects 
were  selected  with  the  purpose  of  finding  failures  as  soon  as  possible, 
of  the  thirty  subjects  under  five  years  of  age,  sixteen  failed  and 
fourteen  succeeded  on  the  first  trial.  In  Young's  investigation,  of 
the  one  hundred  subjects  over  five  years  of  age  but  less  than  six, 
seventy-eight  succeeded  on  the  first  trial  and  only  twenty-two  failed. 
In  the  present  investigation,  of  the  twelve  subjects  over  five  but  less 
than  six,  eight  succeeded  and  four  failed.  These  twelve  must  be 
remembered  also  as  selected  for  failure.  All  of  this  indicates  that  the 
majority  of  children  over  five  years  of  age  may  be  expected  to  suc- 
ceed with  the  formboard  on  the  first  trial.  The  fact  that  the  subjects 
of  this  investigation  were  selected  simply  emphasizes  this  point, 
since  in  spite  of  the  selection,  twice  as  many  succeeded  in  the  sixth 
year. 

Of  the  1400  cases  in  the  Psychological  Clinic  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  who  were  examined  with  the  Witmer  formboard 
since  it  has  been  in  use,  137  failed  on  one  or  more  trials.  This  is 
roughly  10  per  cent.  Tables  IV  and  V  present  an  analysis  of  these 
failures.  Of  the  eighteen  diagnosed  as  normal,  sixteen  were  under 
five  years  of  age.  Of  the  one  hundred  diagnosed  as  definitely  feeble- 
minded, 69  per  cent  were  over  five  years  of  age.  Young  tested  very 
few  children  under  five  years  of  age,  the  median  of  his  failures  coming 
at  6.75  years.     However,  80  per  cent  of  his  failures  were  between 


244 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

Table  I. — Young's  Shortest  Trials. 


Age 

No. 

! 
I 

n 

III 

IV 

V 

4.25 

8 

34-36 

42 

50 

53 

60 

4.75 

16 

22-36 

35-37 

39-42 

43-47 

53-103 

5.25 

34 

20-26 

27-31 

32-36 

37-44 

46-  67 

5.75 

44 

16-25 

26-28 

29-32 

33-38 

39-  92 

6.25 

101 

20-26 

27-29 

30-32 

33-38 

39-  76 

6.75 

106 

17-23 

24-27 

2S-31 

32-37 

39-  86 

7.25 

145 

18-22 

23-25 

26-28 

29-31 

32-  56 

7.75 

143 

15-20 

21-23 

24-26 

27-30 

31-  51 

8.25 

145 

12-19 

20-22 

23-24 

25-27 

28-  42 

8.75 

140 

13-17 

18-20 

21-22 

23-25 

26-  38 

9.25 

138 

12-17 

18-19 

20-21 

22-24 

25-  40 

9.75 

161 

12-16 

17-18 

19-20 

21-22 

23-  54 

10.25 

123 

11-15 

16-17 

18-19 

20-22 

23-  30 

10.75 

133 

10-15 

16-17 

18-19 

20-22 

23-  38 

11.25 

142 

11-14 

15-16 

17-18 

19-21 

22-  27 

11.75 

148 

10-14 

15-16 

17-18 

19-21 

22-  33 

12.25 

179 

10-13 

14-15 

16-17 

18-19 

20-  30 

12.75 

163 

9-13 

14-15 

16-17 

18-19 

20-  29 

13.50 

281 

8-12 

13-14 

15-16 

17-18 

19-  30 

14.50 

172 

8-12 

13-14 

15-16 

17-18 

19-  24 

15.50 

75 

7-12 

13 

14-15 

16-17 

18-  27 

Table  II. — Young's  Shortest  Trials  for  Failures. 


Age 

No. 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

4.25 

10 

29-49 

53-60 

65-68 

72-75 

118 

4.75 

16 

2S-35 

42-45 

50-61 

78-92 

105-119 

5.25 

18 

26-28 

38-41 

45-50 

56-61 

68-202 

5.75 

14 

26-27 

36-39 

49-50 

54-69 

73-110 

6.25 

23 

24-29 

30-34 

34-37 

41-45 

48-103 

6.75 

22 

22—27 

29-31 

33-38 

40-57 

58-102 

7.25 

18 

20-25 

25-30 

32-34 

36-40 

41-  53 

7.75 

16 

16-20 

25-27 

30-34 

35-38 

49-131 

8.25 

10 

18-21 

22-23 

27-28 

29-30 

37-  40 

8.75 

6 

23-24 

32 

36 

51 

52 

9.25 

5 

21 

22 

22 

25 

25 

9.75 

3 

17 

22 

23 

10.25 

3 

20 

23 

43 

10.75 

2 

19 

32 

11.25 

21 

11.75 

19 

12.25 

20 

12.75 

28 

13.50 

16 

14.50 

13 

15.50 

3 

13 

20 

43 

Table  III. — Summary  of  Cases  Reported. 


Age 

Case  No. 

Diagnosis 

Rating 

F.  B.  Time 

2.25 

4 

N. 

3 

501 

2.75 

3 

N. 

4 

124 

3.25 

14 

N. 

3 

183 

3.75 

7 

N. 

3.3.3 

59 

3.75 

10 

X. 

3 

345 

4.25 

16 

N. 

3.3.3 

276 

4.25 

13 

N. 

3 

44 

4.25 

23 

N. 

3.2 

60 

4.25 

24 

D. 

2.4 

94 

4.25 

17 

X. 

3.3.3 

108 

4.25 

11 

X. 

3 

420 

4.25 

19 

X. 

3.3 

50 

4.75 

22 

X. 

3.3.  1 

263 

4.75 

18 

N. 

3.3 

48 

4.75 

25 

D. 

2.3 

111 

4.75 

20 

D. 

3.2 

89 

5.25 

21 

M.  G.  I. 

1.4 

41 

5  .  25 

9 

X. 

3 

105 

5.75 

S 

N. 

3 

88 

5  .75 

12 

M.  G.  I. 

1.4 

42 

6.25 

6 

N. 

3.1 

63 

6.25 

5 

D. 

2.3 

75 

10.75 

2 

L.  G.  I. 

1.3 

59 

12.25 

15 

I.  I. 

1.2 

436 

N.=Normal.  D.=Doubtful.  L.G.  I. = Low  Grade  Imbecile.  I.  I.=Idio-imbecile.  M.  G.  I. = Middle  Grade  Imbecile. 

Table  IV. — Distribution  According  to  Diagnosis.     Clinic  Cases. 


All 

Under  5 . 

Over  5 

Number 

Per  cent 

Number 

Per  cent 

Number 

Per  cent 

N  ormal 

Deferred 

H.  G.  I 

M.G.  I 

L.  G.  I 

LI 

18 

19 

4 

11 

24 

51 

S 

2 

13.1 

13.9 

2.9 

8.0 

17.6 

37.8 

5.8 

1.5 

16 

11 
2 

5 
6 

2 

3S.1 

26.2 

4.8 

11.9 
14.2 

4.8 

2 

8 

2 

11 
19 

45 
6 
2 

2.1 

8.5 

2.1 

11.6 

20.0 

47.3 

6.4 

2.1 

S.  I 

Idiot 

Table  V. — Time  Types  of  Failure. 


Diagnosis 

Complete 

Under  60  Sec. 

Over  180  Sec. 

Clinic  Cases: 

1 
7 
1 

10 

23 

2 

1 

5 
2 

2 

4 

92 

3 
1 
1 

2 
2 
6 

11 

H.G.I 

M.G.I 

L.G.I 

L.  I 

Idiot 

Young's.     No  Diagnosis 

246  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

the  ages  of  four  and  eight.  In  the  examination  of  3037  subjects 
Young  found  188  failures,  or  6.2  per  cent.  The  difference  between 
this  and  the  10  per  cent  of  the  Clinic  cases  is  due  in  part  to  the  fact 
that  those  who  come  to  the  Clinic  are  already  selected  or  suspected 
of  deficiency,  but  also  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  age  groups  are  not 
at  all  parallel.  Young's  failures  under  five  years  of  age  are  only  .8 
per  cent  of  the  total  number  examined,  while  the  Clinic  failures  under 
five  years  of  age  are  3  per  cent  of  the  total  number  examined.  Of  all 
the  failures  available  the  mode  comes  at  4.75  years,  the  median  at 
6.75.  However,  Young  had  more  under  four  years  old,  26  per  cent 
are  under  five  years  of  age  and  74  per  cent  under  eight  years. 

Of  the  19  clinic  cases  in  which  the  diagnosis  was  deferred,  which 
means  that  these  cases  are  at  least  doubtful,  8  were  over  five  years  of 
age.  The  experience  of  the  Clinic  is  that  the  tendency  is  for  the 
diagnosis  to  go  down  rather  than  up  in  the  cases  of  deferred  diagnosis, 
so  that  the  probability  is  that  at  least  75  per  cent  of  these  19  cases 
are  feebleminded,  especially  those  over  five  years  of  age. 

As  table  IV  shows,  69.1  per  cent  of  the  Clinic  failures  are  over 
five  years  of  age,  13.1  per  cent  are  definitely  normal,  73  per  cent  are 
definitely  feebleminded,  and  13.9  per  cent  doubtful,  making  a  prob- 
ability of  86.9  per  cent  feebleminded.  Of  the  feebleminded  44.5  per 
cent  are  lower  than  low  grade  imbecile,  and  28  per  cent  are  in  the  im- 
becile group.  There  is  also  a  probability  of  27  per  cent  normal.  Of 
these  64.3  per  cent  are  under  five  years  of  age.  Of  the  73  per  cent  defi- 
nitely feebleminded  85  per  cent  are  over  five  years  of  age.  Of  the  86.9 
per  cent  probably  feebleminded  78  per  cent  are  over  five  years  of  age. 
Of  the  16  per  cent  definitely  normal  70  per  cent  are  under  five  years 
of  age.  Of  the  95  subjects  over  five  years  of  age  who  failed,  89.5  per 
cent  are  definitely  feebleminded  and  there  is  a  probability  of  97.9  per 
cent.  The  number  of  cases  is  small  but  the  indication  of  the  tendency 
is  supported  by  the  study  of  the  cases  which  follow.  It  is  very 
likely  that  98  per  cent  of  those  over  five  years  of  age,  who  are  brought 
to  the  Clinic  already  under  suspicion,  who  fail  with  the  formboard, 
are  feebleminded,  and  that  89  per  cent  are  definitely  so.  However,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  these  are  selected  cases,  already  suspected 
of  feeblemindedness.  Yet  the  probability  is  that  the  examination  of 
a  larger  number  of  apparently  normal  children  over  five  years  of  age 
would  support  this  to  the  extent  of  making  the  probability  greater. 

A  treatment  of  the  time  results  of  these  failures  at  the  Psycho- 
logical Clinic  is  impossible,  as  in  many  cases  the  record  indicates  no 
more  than  failure.  Table  V  shows  the  approximate  number  of 
complete  failures,  those  who  failed  under  one  minute,  and  those  who 
failed  after  working  more  than  three  minutes.     Of  course  all  of  the 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORM  BOARD.    247 

137  cases  could  not  be  used  in  this  classification.  Only  those  where 
there  is  good  evidence  of  time  record  and  of  complete  failure  were 
used.  However,  the  tendencies  are  evident  from  this  incomplete 
table.  Of  the  137  cases  (so  far  as  can  be  seen)  only  15  persisted  more 
than  three  minutes  on  the  first  trial;  only  13  worked  less  than  a 
minute  and  quit;  while  51  failed  more  or  less  completely,  making  it 
seem  not  worth  while  to  record  the  time.  Of  those  considered  com- 
plete failures  84  per  cent  are  definitely  in  the  feebleminded  class  with 
a  probability  of  98  per  cent.  Of  the  failures  in  one  minute  or  less 
more  than  50  per  cent  are  probably  feebleminded.  In  the  three 
minute  class  27  per  cent  are  probably  normal,  and  20  per  cent 
definitely  so. 

The  futility  of  comparisons  based  upon  the  time  records  of 
failures  with  the  formboard  is  made  obvious  by  a  consideration  of  the 
difficulties  encountered  by  the  different  subjects.  If  the  formboard 
presented  the  same  difficulties  for  each,  the  time  would  mean  more 
as  a  measure  of  general  ability.  As  it  is,  the  time  is  a  measure  only  of 
formboard  ability.  Young  takes  the  shortest  record  of  three  trials 
as  the  index  of  formboard  ability.  This  is  challenged.  It  is  not 
an  index  of  the  child's  resourcefulness  and  intelligence,  but  is  a 
composite  result  produced  by  his  intelligence  and  the  training  received 
in  his  other  trials.  If  all  conditions  could  be  equalized  for  every 
trial  for  every  subject;  if  the  attitude  of  every  subject  were  the 
same,  allowing  for  differences  in  ability  to  attend,  etc.;  if  the  attitude 
of  the  examiner  were  the  same  in  every  trial  for  every  subject,  then 
the  shortest  trial  might  be  the  index.  But  it  seems  as  if  these  factors 
are  equalized  most  nearly  in  the  first  trial  and  a  careful  study  of  that 
trial  is  most  important. 

In  every  examination  the  subject  was  told  to  see  how  quickly 
he  could  put  the  blocks  back.  The  suggestion  to  hurry  or  do  the 
test  fast  does  not  have  much,  if  any,  effect  upon  children  under  six 
years  of  age.  Their  movements  are  very  deliberate  and  slow  and 
there  is  no  indication  that  the  young  child  has  the  concepts  of  time 
and  speed.  With  most  children  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  understanding 
the  terms  and  the  idea  suggested.  They  are  told  many  times  a  day 
to  hurry,  but  they  do  not  hurry.  In  the  child  of  two  to  three  years 
of  age  there  is  absolutely  no  response  to  the  command  to  hurry. 
There  may  be  some  response  from  the  child  from  three  to  six  years 
of  age,  if  the  command  is  repeated  urgently,  but  the  response  will  be 
a  quickening  of  the  movements  where  the  gain  is  of  no  advantage. 
Case  1,  at  the  age  of  three  years  and  six  months,  after  much  training 
with  the  formboard,  when  urged  to  hurry,  will  make  quick  move- 
ments of  the  hands  after  the  block  is  selected  and  near  the  recess  by 
slapping  it  down  quickly,  but  she  loses  just  as  much  time  as  ever  in 


248  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

picking  up  the  blocks  and  finding  the  recesses.  Her  speed  has 
improved  through  practice,  but  not  because  of  any  understanding 
of  what  it  means  to  do  the  test  fast.  The  older  child  gets  the  concept 
very  slowly,  especially  before  he  goes  to  school  where  he  has  experi- 
ences of  tardiness  and  its  consequences,  urging  to  be  prompt  in 
response  to  signals,  urging  to  read  faster,  to  hurry  up  and  down 
stairs  with  others  who  are  hurrying,  hastening  in  games,  and  the 
rush  home  at  meal  time  under  the  spell  of  the  ravenous  appetite  of 
early  school  days.  In  the  case  of  a  few  children  of  six  or  seven  years 
of  age  the  only  response  to  the  suggestion  to  hurry  was  the  making  of 
swift  movements  similar  to  those  described  above.  This  is  the  first 
noticeable  element  of  behavior  in  line  with  the  developing  concept 
of  speed;  swift  movements  after  there  is  no  longer  need  for  thought, 
studied  imageability,  etc.,  but  no  speed  in  the  analytic  process. 
Children  who  do  try  to  hurry  make  slower  records.  Often  the 
number  of  errors  is  not  due  to  lack  of  ability  to  perceive  form,  but 
to  blurred  and  incomplete  perception  due  to  rapid  work. 

To  the  second  part  of  the  first  instructions,  "Use  both  hands 
if  you  want  to, "  there  is  no  response  of  any  consequence  until  from 
eight  to  ten  years  of  age.  All  of  the  younger  subjects  work  with  the 
preferred  hand,  at  best  simply  making  the  other  hand  assist  in 
removing  wrongly  placed  blocks  or  in  passing  blocks  to  the  other 
hand.  It  can  be  quite  definitely  concluded  that  if  a  child  of  six, 
seven,  or  eight,  uses  both  hands  in  selecting  and  placing  the  blocks, 
he  has  good  initiative,  originality,  and  planfulness,  and  that  in  this 
case  the  formboard  aids  in  selecting  an  individual  of  more  than 
average  ability. 

Two  general  classes  of  failures  are  found,  the  normal  and  the 
feebleminded,  but  this  classification  can  hardly  be  based  upon  the 
fact  of  failure  or  success  alone.  As  has  already  been  said,  the 
child  over  five  years  of  age  who  fails  with  the  formboard  is  very 
likely  to  be  feebleminded,  the  child  under  five  who  fails  may  be 
feebleminded,  but  the  failure  alone  does  not  prove  that,  for  more 
children  between  the  ages  of  three  and  five  succeed  than  fail.  The 
failure  may  be  indicative  of  the  lack  of  development  of  an  ability 
or  a  complex  of  abilities.  In  one  child  we  will  have  one  who  lacks 
and  in  another  one  in  whom  the  ability  has  not  yet  developed,  and 
each  may  show  the  same  symptoms,  so  far  as  formboard  performance 
is  concerned.  If  thinking  and  mental  ability  are  dependent  upon 
the  functioning  of  the  nervous  system  and  particularly  the  brain 
centers  and  medullated  fibres,  it  is  possible  that  in  a  young  child 
some  of  these  centers  are  not  yet  developed  enough  to  function 
adequately  or  the  fibres  are  not  yet  medullated  because  of  lack  of 
the  kind  of  experience  necessary  to  develop  them.     Thus  the  dis- 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    249 

tinction  arises  as  to  whether  a  subject  fails  because  of  a  congenital 
defect  or  because  his  experience  has  been  such  that  his  intellect  is  too 
small.     His  intelligence  is  affected  by  both. 

No  failures  are  due  to  lack  of  vitality,  health,  control,  coordina- 
tion, or  dexterity,  although  performance  is  qualitatively  affected  by 
all.  If  a  child  is  poor  enough  in  any  of  these  abilities  to  fail  he  would 
not  be  submitted  to  any  sort  of  test.  Most  failures  are  due  to  some 
sort  of  failure  of  attention  and  particularly  distribution  of  attention 
and  persistent  concentration  of  attention.  In  the  cases  reported 
in  this  investigation  these  two  kinds  of  failures  include  three-fifths 
of  all.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  concentrated  persistence 
and  simple  persistence.  Case  15,  the  idio-imbecile,  is  a  fine  example 
of  this.  She  persisted  but  could  not  concentrate.  This  is  so  closely 
associated  with  failure  due  to  lack  of  analytic  concentration  of 
attention  that  the  two  cannot  be  separated.  She  could  not  give 
enough  attention  to  analyze  the  task.  The  least  distraction  threw 
her  off.  She  recognized  the  recesses  corresponding  to  the  blocks  and 
associated  them  very  well,  but  the  least  impulse  was  sufficient  to 
induce  her  to  take  out  one  already  correctly  placed  and  try  it  else- 
where.    Yet  she  stuck  to  it. 

Failure,  therefore,  means  inability  to  give  proper  attention. 
This  raises  the  old  question, — what  is  attention?  It  is  a  state  of 
consciousness  in  which  some  one  object,  or  thought,  occupies  the 
center  of  consciousness  to  the  relative  exclusion  of  all  other  objects 
or  thoughts.  It  is  the  focalization  of  consciousness  in  which  experi- 
ence is  used  in  judging.  If  experience  is  meager,  judgment  is  poor, 
and  the  performance  correspondingly  poor.  Hence  distractibility 
is  a  prime  cause  of  failure  of  attention;  but  it  is  not  the  only  cause. 
The  stolid,  dull,  lethargic  child  with  low  vitality,  without  vivacity, 
not  alert  enough  to  have  his  attention  caught  by  distractions,  will 
also  fail  because  of  inability  to  attend.  Here  it  may  be  said  that  he 
cannot  give  proper  attention  to  the  task  in  hand  for  exactly  the  same 
reason  that  he  cannot  be  distracted.  He  cannot  attend  to  anything. 
There  may  be  several  reasons  for  this.  First,  he  may  be  feeble- 
minded; the  cells  of  the  cortex  may  be  undeveloped,  the  association 
pathways  may  not  be  made  clear,  or  there  may  be  lesions  in  the 
cortex,  in  the  inner  nuclei,  or  among  the  fibres  leading  to  the  cortex. 
Secondly,  the  subject  may  be  so  young  that  the  cells  of  the  cortex 
are  relatively  undeveloped  and  the  association  pathways  are  not 
yet  established.  By  the  time  this  has  come  about  there  is  sufficient 
ability  in  coordination  to  succeed  with  the  task.  This  makes  possible 
a  very  definite  line  of  distinction  between  the  two  general  classes  of 
failures  in  which  the  causes  are  apparently  the  same.  The  feeble- 
minded child  is  very  much  like  the  very  young  normal  child. 


250  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

In  many  cases  failure  seems  due  to  lack  of  imageability  or  under- 
standing. However,  if  there  is  persistence  enough,  many  children 
will  succeed  with  poor  imageability.  Persistence  in  the  trial  and 
error  method  will  bring  success  in  spite  of  poor  imageability.  This 
persistence  is  indicative  of  some  distribution  of  attention.  It  is 
reasonable  that  one  may  fail  to  understand  the  task  because  there  is 
very  poor  form  perception  or  imageability.  There  is  a  reciprocal 
relation  between  the  abilities  here.  Although  imagination  is  the 
most  general  and  comprehensive  of  the  powers  of  the  mind,  yet  it  is 
true  that  with  poor  power  of  attention,  in  any  respect,  there  is  poor 
imagination,  and  where  there  is  poor  imagination  and  distribution 
of  attention,  analytic  and  persistent  concentration  of  attention  are 
not  possible.  Distribution  of  attention  may  be  defined  as  the  ability 
to  see  the  possibilities  in  a  given  situation;  analytic  concentration 
of  attention  may  also  be  denned  as  the  ability  to  select  out  the  impor- 
tant and  significant  details  of  the  situation.  Therefore  lack  of  dis- 
tribution of  attention  is  much  more  likely  to  produce  failure,  than 
lack  of  analytic  concentration  of  attention  or  lack  of  imageability  or 
associability. 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  failure  with  the  formboard  is 
primarily  a  failure  in  some  way  of  attention.  From  the  standpoint 
of  attention  there  are  three  things  most  necessary  for  the  satisfactory 
and  ready  completion  of  this  test:  distribution  of  attention,  per- 
sistent concentration  of  attention,  and  analytic  concentration  of 
attention.  If  the  range  of  attention  is  too  limited,  no  one  can 
perform  this  test.  That  is,  if  attention  is  too  fixed  there  is  a  tendency 
to  obsession,  the  task  is  not  grasped  and  the  possibilities  are  not  seen. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  distribution  of  attention  goes  so  far  as  to  make 
it  too  widely  dispersed,  the  difficulty  is  quite  similar  and  the  task 
cannot  be  completed.  The  highly  distractible  subject  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  this.  There  is  a  middle  ground,  where  there  is  a  distribution 
of  the  attention  sufficient  to  cover  or  grasp  the  possibilities,  and  yet 
where  there  is  enough  concentration  upon  the  immediate  part  to 
complete  it  as  an  element  of  the  whole.  These  things  are  observed 
in  the  behavior  of  the  very  young  child.  Both  difficulties  are  likely 
to  occur,  the  child  may  be  easily  attracted  to  other  tilings  and  the 
next  minute  may  be  under  the  spell  of  his  efforts  to  place  a  given 
block  in  the  wrong  recess.  Where  this  is  the  case  we  have  an  emphasis 
on  the  fact  that  in  the  education  of  the  child  he  must  be  held  to  any 
educational  task  by  repeated  encouragement  and  command,  up  to 
the  point  of  fatigue  or  distraction  due  to  misunderstanding  of  the 
command. 

A  small  range  of  attention  may  be  due  to  lack  of  development,  to 
congenital  deficiency,  or  to  injury.     The  range  may  be  so  small  that 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    251 

comparison  of  forms,  or  of  forms  with  recesses  is  impossible.  This  com- 
parison marks  the  use  of  a  more  intelligent  process  in  the  performance  of 
the  formboard  test.  The  child  goes  beyond  the  trial  and  error  method, 
beyond  simple  recognition,  to  a  simple  reasoning  process.  But  it  fol- 
lows immediately  upon  attentive  observation  of  two  or  more  objects 
with  the  question  in  mind  as  to  which  two  are  most  alike.  This,  we 
note,  depends  upon  range  and  distribution  of  attention  and  is  the  thing 
which  so  many  young  and  deficient  children  lack;  hence  the  dependence 
upon  trial  and  error,  or  the  giving  up  to  failure.  In  every  case  where 
there  is  such  comparison  and  consequent  judgment  there  is  good  distri- 
bution of  attention  and  analytic  concentration  of  attention.  Pillsbury2 
calls  this  'judgment  of  evaluation  or  association.'  This  judgment  of 
evaluation  or  association  without  actual  perception  marks  a  still 
higher  process  and  hence  signifies  greater  ability.  If  the  child 
selects  a  block  and  says  to  himself,  "Oh  yes,  I  know  where  this  goes, 
I  remember  seeing  the  right  recess,"  he  is  making  a  judgment  of 
evaluation  on  association.  As  judgment,  then,  is  dependent  upon 
the  nature  of  attention,  so  inference,  in  its  simplest  form,  may  be 
said  to  be  an  association  dependent  upon  the  nature  of  attention. 
Inference  is  simple  judgment,  judgment  is  the  selection  of  the  essential 
element  of  a  given  situation  with  a  comprehension  of  some  of  the 
possibilities.  But  such  a  consciousness  of  the  situation  and  the 
selection  are  dependent  upon  sensation,  and  the  consciousness  of  the 
sensation  is  dependent  upon  attention.  In  the  performance  of  the 
formboard  test  there  must  be  some  consciousness  of  the  situation 
and,  of  course,  there  is  some  selection,  and  these  things  depend  upon 
the  ability  to  give  proper  attention.  This  brings  us  to  the  point  that 
while  attention  is  most  important  in  the  performance  of  the  test, 
attention  itself  is  dependent  upon  a  complex  of  the  other  abilities, 
the  lack  of  any  one  of  which  would  not  bring  about  failure.  Image- 
ability  and  associability  determine  the  fixation  of  attention,  attention 
then  determines  what  course  specific  imagination  shall  take  and  hence 
aids  in  determining  the  understanding  of  the  task.  Specific  imagina- 
tion in  turn  depends  upon  memory,  its  trainability  and  retentiveness 
and  the  readiness  of  recall,  in  short  upon  the  clarity  of  the  mental 
image.  It  becomes  apparent  at  once  that  "the  conditions  of  attention 
are  as  widespread  as  the  conditions  of  consciousness."2 

It  has  already  been  said  that  the  essence  of  attention  is  the 
increase  of  the  clearness  of  one  idea  or  group  of  ideas  at  the  expense 
of  others.  If  all  forms  in  the  formboard  are  equally  clear,  attention 
is  too  dispersed;  if  none  are  analyzed,  or  if  only  one  is  observed, 
there  is  no  clearness  of  the  mental  image  and  hence  no  clear  idea 
dominates  consciousness.  It  is  impossible  to  measure  the  participa- 
tion of  all  of  the  mental  processes  in  determining  a  state  of  attention, 


252  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CLINIC. 

but  much  depends  upon  association  in  perception.  Clear  perception 
is  fundamental.  Some  apperceptional  background  is  also  funda- 
mental, but  this  is  dependent,  in  the  first  place,  upon  former  clear 
perceptions  and  these  upon  certain  motor  adaptations  and  coordina- 
tions, which  come  about  in  response  to  some  stimulus.  The  value  of 
the  formboard  as  a  test  of  attention  is  that  it  gets  down  to  the 
fundamentals  of  attention,  for  in  practically  every  case  the  stimulus 
of  the  sharply  defined  blocks  and  recesses  is  so  strong  that  there  is 
adaptation  of  the  sense  organs  and  correlated  movements  of  the 
organism  and  its  parts.  Only  if  there  be  defect  in  sense  organs,  or 
motor  inability,  extreme  distractibility  or  stubbornness,  in  the 
otherwise  normal  child,  will  there  be  failure  to  respond.  After  the 
response,  attention  may  be  measured  roughly  by  the  accomplishment 
and  the  amount  of  stimulus  necessary  for  distraction.  If  distraction 
comes  early,  there  is  little  persistence  of  attention.  Fluctuation  of 
attention  depends  upon  the  duration  of  acts  of  attention,  and  this  is 
largely  due  to  the  fatigue  of  the  cortical  cells. 

Again,  the  response  that  the  examiner  gets  from  the  subject 
depends  upon  two  sets  of  conditions.  These  two  include  all  of  what 
has  already  been  said.  This  classification  aids  in  keeping  clear  the 
two  sides  of  the  question  of  attention.  Attention  depends  upon 
objective  and  subjective  conditions;  upon  the  nature  of  the  task  and 
its  physical  background  or  setting,  and  upon  the  nature  of  the  mind 
of  the  subject  at  the  time  of  presentation.  Under  objective  conditions 
we  have  the  summation  effect  of  successive  stimuli,  those  brought  by 
the  test  itself  and  by  the  environment.  This  covers  the  matter  of 
repetition  of  instructions,  urging,  even  starting  the  performance, 
and  all  possible  distractions.  Under  subjective  conditions  we  include 
the  mental  state  of  the  subject  when  the  task  is  presented  to  him,  and 
this  will  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  objective  conditions  and 
by  his  past  experience.  The  kind  of  attention  given  Yvill  depend  more 
upon  the  latter  than  upon  the  former.  In  the  instructions  of  the 
examiner,  "I  am  going  to  take  all  these  blocks  out  and  put  them  up 

here , "  the  subject  has  an  opportunity  to  picture  himself  doing  it. 

A  child  with  experience  with  blocks  will  do  better  because  he  has  had 
some  ideas  winch  were  similar  to  the  one  aroused.  The  mood  of  the 
child  at  the  moment  of  the  test,  Ins  attitude  toward  his  world,  his 
health  tone,  and  his  immediately  preceding  experience  are  determining 
factors  in  the  subjective  condition.  The  whole  attitude  toward  the 
present  task  will  be  a  complex  determined  by  his  apperceptional 
background.  To  some  children  it  is  an  opportunity  to  play  a  game, 
to  some  it  means  a  command  to  do  hard  work  which  they  will  be 
compelled  to  do.  The  child  with  a  lack  of  manual  and  digital  experi- 
ence will  be  sadly  handicapped.     We  are  inclined  to  say  that  the 


FAILURES  WITH  THE  WITMER  FORMBOARD.    253 

performance  depends  upon  the  interest  the  child  takes  in  the  task, 
but  we  are  only  saying  again  what  has  already  been  said.  Interest 
is  only  the  objective  way  of  looking  at  the  conditions  of  attention. 

This  brings  us  to  the  point  that  attention  goes  back  funda- 
mentally to  the  element  of  consciousness,  sensation.  Clarity  of 
perception  is  due  to  sense  acuity  and  imageability,  the  initial  ability 
to  have  images.  The  stimulus  which  gets  attention  must  be  relatively 
intense,  the  conditions  of  the  subject  must  be  such  that  the  proper 
motor  adaptations  and  coordinations  are  made,  and  the  appercep- 
tional  background  must  contribute  toward  making  the  sensation 
pleasurable.  This  brings  out  the  fact  of  the  participation  of  mental 
processes  other  than  sensation  in  perception.  Perception  is  not  the 
mere  entrance  of  a  group  of  sensations,  but  an  arousal  of  old  experience 
by  a  few  newly  entering  sensations.  The  perception  of  the  thing  to 
be  done  is  then  the  result  of  present  sensation  as  interpreted  in  accord 
with  past  experience.  Voluntary  action  is  a  problem  of  attention. 
This  produces  a  syllogism:  action  is  dependent  upon  sensation; 
attention  controls  the  entrance  and  course  of  sensation  and  its 
consequent  ideas;  therefore  attention  controls  action. 

The  child  who  cries,  who  is  shy,  nervous,  stubborn,  excited  or 
frightened,  cannot  give  proper  attention,  for  attention  is  very  poor 
when  feeling  and  emotion  are  strong.  Most  attention  involves  strain, 
and  emotion  involves  attention  to  that  which  distracts  from  the  task  in 
hand.  Emotion  or  feeling  is  attention  to  sensation.  Emotion  is  not  a 
matter  of  inattention  but  of  strained  attention,  hence  the  futility  of 
attempting  to  secure  the  solution  of  a  problem,  the  making  of  a  com- 
parison, or  the  passing  of  judgment,  during  the  stress  of  emotion. 

The  above  brings  us  to  the  conclusion  that  "attention  has  an 
anatomical  basis  and  that  as  a  starting  point  for  a  nervous  ex- 
planation of  attention  we  must  accept  the  hypothesis  of  psycho- 
physical parallelism."3  With  this  in  mind  it  appears,  first,  that  the 
conditions  of  a  state  of  attention  at  any  given  moment  depend  most 
largely  upon  apperceptional  urge;  and  secondly,  that  successful  per- 
formance of  the  formboard  test  depends  upon  knowledge  of  space 
relations  acquired  by  the  child  through  trial  and  error  or  through 
training. 

Bibliography. 

1.  Young,  Herman  H.  The  Witmer  Formboard.  The  Psychol.  Clinic, 
1916,  10,  93-111. 

2.  Pillsbury,  W.  B.  Attention.  New  York:  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1908. 
Pp.   173-174. 

3.  Ibid.     Pp.  234. 

For  further  reference  to  reports  on  investigations  with  the  formboard,  see  H. 
H.Younq,  The  Witmer  Formboard,  The  Psychol.  Clinic,  1916,  10,  Pp.  110-111. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


°£c  13  mi 

MAY  4   1925 


■10 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


